Transubstantiation and Sabbatarianism in "The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan"

I am still reading “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan.”  This is a Christian work that dates anywhere from the fifth century C.E. to the ninth century C.E.  It was written originally in Arabic and was translated into Ethiopic.

In this post, I would like to highlight two issues: transubstantiation and the Sabbath.  I will be using the translation that is in The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden.

A.  Transubstantiation states that the bread and the wine in the Eucharist literally become the body and blood of Christ.  This belief is arguably attested in Christianity as early as the second century.  See here for patristic references that appear to lean in that direction.  (Matthew E. Ferris in Evangelicals Adrift, however, argues that patristic sources manifest more of a symbolic approach to the bread and the wine.)

Transubstantiation appears in “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan”, Book I, Chapter 69, verse 12.  In that chapter, Adam and Eve use corn to make an oblation to God.  God tells Adam and Eve:

“Since ye have made this oblation and have offered it to Me, I shall make it My flesh, when I come down upon earth to save you; and I shall cause it to be offered continually upon an altar, for forgiveness and for mercy, unto those who partake of it duly.”

This is saying that corn will be made into the flesh of Christ.  It also says that this corn will be offered continually on an altar and will bring forgiveness and mercy to partakers.  This sounds like transubstantiation occurring at the Eucharist, which is a sort of sacrifice.

B.  I grew up in and long associated with churches that observed the Sabbath on Saturday, the seventh day of the week.  Many Christians who go the church on Sunday and do not keep the seventh-day Sabbath argue that God only gave the Sabbath to the people of Israel, not to all human beings.  Christians who observe the seventh-day Sabbath, by contrast, tend to argue that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance for all human beings.  They say that the Sabbath originated when God rested on the seventh day after creation and blessed and hallowed the seventh day (Genesis 2).  According to this view, Adam and Eve kept the Sabbath.  Non-Sabbatarians have countered that God may have kept the Sabbath at creation, but that does not mean that human beings did so until God revealed the Sabbath to Israel.

Which view does “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan” go with?  In Book I, Chapter 56, the Word of God (who would become Jesus Christ) is contrasting the good things that God has done for Adam with the bad things that Satan has done.  The goal is to encourage Adam to follow God, not Satan.  In v 6, the Word of God lists a day of rest among the good things that God has given to Adam.  The implication here is that Adam observed the Sabbath.

Yet, Chapter 68, verse 20 complicates things.  There, Adam and Eve resolve to give God an offering three times a week: on Wednesday, on Friday the preparation day, and on the Sabbath Sunday.  There, the Sabbath is not identified as Saturday, which is when Jews observe it, in accordance with their interpretation of the seventh day of the week.  Rather, it is identified as Sunday.

The passage is odd, for there still does seem to be an acknowledgement in the text that Saturday is the seventh day of the week.  Friday, after all, is called the preparation day.  Jews regarded Friday as the preparation day for the Sabbath, which was on Saturday, the following day.  Plus, the day of rest in Genesis 2 is on the seventh day of the week.  Certainly the author of “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan” knew that!

Could some Christian have inserted “Sunday” into the text at a later point to make the text accord with Sunday being the Sabbath?  Could the text have originally been presenting Adam and Eve observing the Sabbath on Saturday?  I do not rule that out.  “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan” does, on some level, depict Adam and Eve doing things that God would later command Israel to do under the Torah: offering sacrifices, for instance.  It is not inconceivable that the text could depict them as observing the seventh-day Sabbath, as well.

Consider also the statements by Athanasius (fourth century C.E.) and the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (possibly fourth century C.E.) that the seventh-day Sabbath commemorates creation (Athanasius, Sabbath and Circumcision 3; Apostolic Constitutions 7.23; 8.33).  Maybe “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan” believes that Adam and Eve observed the seventh-day Sabbath to honor God as creator, but that Christians do not have to observe the seventh-day Sabbath because they were part of the new creation, which began with Christ’s coming, and which Sunday supposedly commemorates.

On the other hand, maybe the text does hold that Adam and Eve observed the Sabbath on Sunday.  Justin Martyr, in chapter 67 of his First Apology, says that one reason that Christians honor Sunday is that God began the process of making the world on that day.  Could the author of “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan” have believed that Adam and Eve observed Sunday as the Sabbath to honor the day that God began to create?

Also noteworthy is the Didache, which may date to the first century C.E.  Didache 8:1 says that its Christian audience fasts on the fourth day and on preparation day.  Didache 14:1 affirms that they gather, break bread, and offer thanksgiving after confessing their sins every Lord’s day, which is probably the first day of the week.  That sounds similar with what is in “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan”: Adam and Eve honor the fourth day (Wednesday), preparation day (Friday), and Sunday.

Star Wars and Christianity: Pro and Con

I want to share three links about Star Wars and Christianity.  All three are by Christians.  Two of the links are rather pro-Star Wars and believe that it has themes that overlap with Christianity.  The third link, not so much!

Rachel in Review: A Lutheran View of Star Wars.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens—-A Christian Perspective. (Warning: This post has spoilers about the latest movie.)

Star Wars and the Ancient Religion.  (The author of this article is Peter Jones, and I will be reviewing one of his books in the near future.  I should also mention that I was informed about this article on Eric Chabot’s blog.)

Book Write-Up: The 5 Secrets of Social Success with Biblical Principles

Dr. Lina W. Liken with Cali Blalock.  The 5 Secrets to Social Success with Biblical Principles.  Bloomington: Westbow Press, 2014.  See here to buy the book.

As a person with Asperger’s Syndrome, I can use guidance on how to interact with people.  So can a lot of people, even those who are not on the autism spectrum.  Many young people today are so used to texting and Facebook, that they may need guidance on how to interact face-to-face.  As one of the book’s recommenders said, there are people with substance abuse problems who may need help with social interaction.

The 5 Secrets to Social Success with Biblical Principles offers some good advice.  It talks about eye contact and why it is important.  It also talks about the importance of listening to others.  It offers biblical prooftexts, some of which are relevant, and some of which are connected rather tenuously with the point at hand.

I was rather ambivalent about some of its advice.  For example, it says that, if we offend someone else in a disagreement, we should say to the person that we are sorry that we hurt his or her feelings.  I doubt that the other person would receive that very well.  The offended person may think that we are treating him or her as a little kid, or that we are implying that he or she is the one with the problem.  Maybe a better thing to say would be: “I am sorry if I said what I said in an offensive manner.”  At least the book got me thinking about this issue and shed light on where I may have gone wrong in the past.

The book offered advice on what is not good material for conversation, and there is wisdom in what it said.  Granted, gossip can create bonds between people, but there is a downside to it.  Not only is it unloving, but what will happen if the person you’re talking about overhears your gossip, or somehow learns about it?
The book could have offered more advice, however, on how to have an appropriate conversation.  What is acceptable humor to use?  What are some good ice-breakers?

The book did present two examples of conversation, one that contains idle talk, and the other which exemplifies what the book is advocating.  The former conversation looked realistic to me.  The latter conversation, in which people were formally quoting Bible verses to each other, did not so much.  At the same time, the latter conversation did make a good point: that maybe we should think of ways to help others as opposed to shredding them behind their backs.

The book may be helpful in a small-group setting.  There, people can get into the specifics of what to do and what not to do.  By itself, the book makes good points, but it is inadequate.

I received a complimentary review copy of this book through BookLook Bloggers, in exchange for an honest review.

Book Write-Up: Absolute Love, by R.I. Willroth

R.I. Willroth.  Absolute Love.  Bloomington: WestBow Press, 2011.  See here to buy the book.

The message of this book is one that you will find in a number of Christian books: that God is love, and only in a relationship with God can one find the security, the perspective, and the inner transformation that he or she needs to love others truly.  Some Christian books express this idea in a shallow, simple manner.  Some Christian books are more sophisticated.  Absolute Love leans more in the latter direction.

The book quotes a variety of thinkers and authors: J.I. Packer, John Piper, Jonathan Edwards, C.S. Lewis, M. Scott Peck, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Francis Schaeffer, Bernard of Clairvaux, the Koran, and the list goes on.  If I were to guess, I would say that R.I. Willroth leans towards a Reformed Christian perspective.  The resources that he recommends at the end of the book are largely Reformed.

The book was a bit rambling, but it was an edifying read.  Willroth picks some great quotes.  Sometimes, the quotes overshadow his own voice, but the quotes are still good.  I think of Francis Schaeffer’s statement that Christianity helps us to value others as equals to ourselves, which is why we should try to make things right with people when we sin against them (a perspective that, oddly enough, actually resonates with me as an introvert).  There is Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s critique of how human love is often self-interested, whereas divine love values all people rather than seeking to manipulate or exploit them, and that divine love enables people to leave others to Christ (another perspective on interaction that resonates with me as an introvert).  M. Scott Peck presents a compelling picture of letting go of pretense and self-justification, which can open people up to others.  There is C.S. Lewis’ statement that rebelling against God can set the stage for seeing why sin is wrong, and another person’s statement that God is an abundant stream who gives, not a dry well desperate for us to provide its needs.  While Willroth does not believe that God is a dry well who needs our adoration, Willroth still maintains that God punishes people out of love, since God must oppose injustice, which threatens order and well-being.

Willroth did have some good things of his own to say.  His discussion of various attributes—-love, loyalty, etc.—-promoted a poise, security, and an outlook of purpose that I would like to have.

I did struggle with a few things in reading the book.  Of course, drawing on Christian thinkers, Willroth presents non-belief as a fallen, deficient, dark state, whereas belief is when the light goes on inside of a person, enabling him or her to love others truly.  I have my doubts that things are that simple, for there are non-believers who seem to be good people, and believers who are not-so-good in the moral quality of their lives.  Willroth also critiques the view that people can become more loving by being inside of an unconditionally accepting community, saying that confrontation is loving, and appealing to the prophet Amos.  (Either Willroth says this, or the person he’s quoting says it.  I do not remember offhand.)  I do not entirely disagree with Willroth here, for I think that both elements are important: people modeling and showing unconditional love, and people getting shaken out of their complacency.  I struggle, primarily, on account of the abuses that can occur in the name of Christian confrontation.

Reading this book can be an act of worship.  I am not sure if I learned anything dramatically new from it, but I was edified as Willroth and the people he quoted explored and celebrated God’s love, and the importance of love in general.

I received a complimentary review copy of this book through BookLook Bloggers, in exchange for an honest review.

Book Write-Up: Socialism, by Michael Harrington

Michael Harrington.  Socialism.  New York: Saturday Review Press, 1972.  See here to buy the book.

Michael Harrington was an American democratic socialist.  Some have argued that his book about American poverty, The Other America, helped inspire the Great Society in the 1960s.  I read The Other America in 1996.  I was a conservative at the time, and I read Marvin Orlasky’s The Tragedy of American Compassion, which some have claimed was an inspiration for President George W. Bush’s faith-based initiatives policy.  I read The Other America to get a left-leaning perspective on poverty.

I recently learned about Harrington’s book Socialism from a commenter on my blogger blog.  In 2013, I blogged through W.A. Swanberg’s award-winning biography of six-time Socialist Presidential candidate Norman Thomas.  Some of these posts have gotten a lot of views lately, and the reason may be that Bernie Sanders’ Presidential candidacy has made people curious about socialism.  I was struggling in reading Swanberg’s book to understand what exactly socialism was.  For example, is it totally against private property?  Many of the European countries labeled “socialist” have private industries.  Plus, even American socialist platforms have seemed to presume that, under the society that they advocated, people would own things.  The commenter mentioned Michael Harrington’s book on socialism.  Harrington dedicated his book to Norman Thomas.

A key point that comes out in Michael Harrington’s book on socialism is this: left-wing ideology is far from monolithic, and Michael Harrington is not entirely happy with how it has been implemented.  In prominent cases, Harrington notes, it has led to the oppression and exploitation of people by the government.  This is the case with many Communist regimes, and Harrington argues that these regimes actually violate the teachings of Karl Marx, who, Harrington argues, had more of a peaceful, democratic view of revolution and society than many might think.  In a number of cases, Harrington argues, socialism, social democracy, or left-wing policies have left in place the class system.  The result has been that society, including the leftist ideas as implemented, continue to benefit the wealthy, the powerful, and the well-connected rather than (or more than) the people who need help.  This has been the case with the nationalization of industries and the welfare state.

Harrington tries to diagnose what has gone wrong and offers suggestions on what may work.  According to Harrington, a reason that Communism has not worked well is that many countries in embracing it have skipped a key stage of Marx’s historical scenario: capitalism.  Although Marx believed that capitalism would self-collapse, he thought that it would generate abundance, and then the abundance would be equitably distributed under Communism.  For the proletariat to control the means of production and use them for society’s benefit, in short, there need to be means of production.  But a number of countries that embraced Communism did not really have a capitalist stage of economic development: they had many peasants, but not a lot of producers.  Some, such as the Soviet Union, tried to make up for that, and they did not exactly do so nicely or efficiently.  Harrington supports socialism in prosperous countries such as the U.S. and Europe.  Moreover, he wants to include the Third World in the world economy in a non-exploitative manner.  For example, he is critical of imposing high tariffs on products from the Third World.

Harrington believes that socialism can work.  He points to the Tennessee Valley Authority as an example of socialism at its best: it makes money that it uses for its capital, and it provides low-cost electricity to people.  Harrington states at one point that the TVA is a better socialistic model than the post office!  Harrington also is not so naive as to believe that the U.S. can transition to socialism cold-turkey, but he maintains that feasible steps can be taken in that direction.  Steps can be taken so that businesses answer more to people and communities than their shareholders.  The tax system can be structured so that money is redistributed more equitably.  Harrington responds to the Wall Street Journal‘s argument that such proposals stifle innovation, invention, and job creation by contending that a number of investors profit parasitically rather than contributing to the well-being of people and society.

Harrington mentions Dostoevsky’s statement that socialism is too idealistic and disregards human nature.  Harrington states that Westerners perhaps are as they are because they have been conditioned by capitalism for years.  Harrington notes what he considers to be steps in the right direction, such as young people living in communes and rejecting materialism.  Harrington is critical of the totalitarian Communist regimes that tried to re-educate people from their capitalist assumptions, but he still seems to think that re-education may need to occur.  Perhaps he thinks that it can occur peacefully.

This book was published in 1972, and it is interesting to see what was on people’s radar then, and to compare that with what is on people’s radar now.  Income inequality and the struggles of the middle class were issues then, as they are now.  Harrington also mentions global warming, which he says may result in floods in 2070.  Knowing the outcome of what Harrington mentions was also interesting.  Harrington states that we will have to see how Salvador Allende’s Chile turns out.  This was written before Pinochet took over in a coup.

This is a worthwhile book to read.  I appreciated Harrington’s honest critique of how socialism and left-wing policies have been implemented.  I am not a libertarian myself, but the libertarian argument that government intervention has its drawbacks does resonate with me, and some of what Harrington was saying spoke to the part of me that feels that way.  I do believe that socialism is rather idealistic, that people need a reward to create and produce.  At the same time, I also think that successful models can be implemented that benefit people and society.

Book Write-Up: The Uncontrolling Love of God, by Thomas Jay Oord

Thomas Jay Oord.  The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence.  Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015.  See here to purchase the book.

If there is a loving, omnipotent God, why is there evil in the world?  Theologian Thomas Jay Oord finds many proposed answers to this question to be inadequate, or to be non-answers.  Some solutions posit that God sometimes interferes to stop evil, which invites the question of why God does not do so at all times.  Some solutions inadvertently trivialize evil by suggesting that God has a righteous purpose for permitting it; I agree with Oord, however, that it would have been better had certain human evils not occurred.  Then there is the appeal to mystery, which does not really advance the discussion.

Oord steps to the plate and offers his own solution, which is essentially a version of the free-will defense.  For Oord, God, out of the love that is a part of God’s nature, cannot compel or violate free will.  God can seek to persuade people and can call people to try to stop a problem, however.  Oord takes a similar approach towards natural evil: that God established regularities and randomness in nature, and that God lovingly allows things to unfold rather than seeking to compel.  Oord attempts to deal with the issue of miracles, and he presents a model of miracles that is reconcilable with his view of God’s loving non-compulsion.

Oord does provide food for thought.  Obviously, the problem of evil is a troubling issue for many who believe in God.  If God is loving and can step in to stop or prevent evil, and even does so on occasion, why does evil so often occur?  Some, such as Harold Kushner and, in a sense, Thomas Jay Oord go the route of saying that God cannot directly stop or prevent evil.  They would prefer to believe in a God who is limited in power, than to believe that God can stop evil and chooses not to do so.  This is understandable.  In addition, Oord’s model may resonate with those who would like to believe in God and evolution at the same time, since one can take Oord’s insight in the direction of saying that God allows evolution to unfold rather than micromanaging.

Oord’s model does not make God look that much better than the models that Oord rejects, however.  Why would it be loving for God to prioritize free will or freedom over safety and shalom?  I also question whether Oord’s model makes the problem of evil go away.  Oord believes that God can call people to step in and stop incidents of evil.  Does God consistently do this?  Does God do all that God can do to stop evil, within the parameters of the limitations in which Oord believes?  If a crime is being committed, for example, does God inform someone about this so that he or she can go to the scene and stop it?  I suppose that one can say that God may act in ways that we cannot see, but that does not sound too different from the appeal to mystery that Oord criticizes.  (I am open to saying that God’s approach is to educate people about why a crime is wrong and to encourage people and society to try to stop crime in general, as opposed to stepping in and trying to put out individual fires.  This may be where Oord is going, but that was not entirely clear.)

Oord’s interaction with Scripture has positives and negatives.  Oord argues that certain passages of Scripture make sense in light of open theism, the view that God does not know the future.  Oord presents examples in Scripture of God loving God’s enemies and cooperating with people rather than resorting to compulsion.  Oord’s serious wrestling with the issue of miracles also deserves favorable note: Oord notes examples in the Gospels in which people’s faith or lack thereof plays a role in whether miracles occur, which favors a model of cooperation rather than compulsion.  Oord also wrestles with nature miracles such as the parting of the Red Sea, and his effort does deserve commendation, whether or not one finds his argument convincing.

In terms of negatives, Oord does not wrestle with some of the passages that appear to contradict his position, passages that suggest that God takes a more active role in influencing events or in shaping people’s decisions.  Oord is aware of these passages because he refers to them in summarizing and critiquing various theistic views on God’s providence, free will, and the problem of evil.  Unfortunately, he does not present a way of interpreting them that accords with his model.  Oord also should have addressed how his model accords with heaven, or eschatology.  If God permits evil because God cannot do otherwise, does that mean that God will never step in to stop or prevent evil?  How would one reconcile that with biblical passages about God’s punishment of people and nations, either historically or in the eschaton?  Does God respecting free will or autonomy mean that evil has to exist, or can it be consistent with the existence of a perfect place that is free from evil, such as heaven?  Fruitful discussions about this can occur, so, even if I am not entirely satisfied with Oord’s solutions, I do respect what he says as a starting point.

There were also apparent contradictions in Oord’s book.  Is God intimately involved in nature, or does God maintain a hands-off approach and let nature unfold?  Does the non-human natural world have the agency to respond to God?  Oord seemed to go both ways on these questions.

I have been wrestling with how many stars to give this book, wavering between three and four.  I am settling on four because Oord does raise profound possibilities that can serve as a foundation for future discussion.  Plus, even if I do not treat Oord’s model as an absolute, there may be some truth in what he is saying.

I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.

Problems and Struggles

There have been floods, mudslides, and tornadoes in the Washington state area.  At church this morning, during the part of the service in which people share their joys and concerns for prayer, a lady was talking about her husband interacting with people at work who have lost their homes.  They are impatient and they do not know how exactly to move on, she said.  I’d be the same way if that happened to me.

During the sermon, the pastor was talking about a homeless lady he met this week.  She and her children live in a minivan.  She called the pastor and asked for $25 to fill up her minivan.  The pastor went to fill it up and noticed that she was continually smiling.  She said that she was smiling for herself and her children.  I have never been in that sort of situation, but I can identify.  I doubt that I myself would be able to be happy and to show happiness in that sort of situation, but I would be grateful if others tried to keep hope alive.  That would make the situation a little more bearable.

The pastor was talking about privilege and how he is tempted to take refuge in the privileges that come from his job and who he is (I presume he meant a white male).  I think that it is important for me to hear about people’s problems and struggles.  Of course, social privilege does not stop every problem—-floods, mudslides, tornadoes, disease.  Maybe it helps people cope with them a little better.  I recently got an e-mail from the pastor of the Presbyterian church that I attended in upstate New York.  Someone in the church there is raising money for a family whose home burned down.  They did not have insurance because, notwithstanding their hard work, they could not afford the premiums.

Hearing these sorts of stories should make me more sensitive to people’s needs.  I have helped some people through donations, and some people I have not helped because I have been busy.  I know that I cannot help everyone.  I should be willing to help at least someone.